Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by jamesd96, Dec 19, 2011.
What are some military stereotypes/assumptions that annoy you the most?
This chick annoys me.
I think it is unfortunate that women are not permitted to serve in the combat arms. That will change at some point.
"The Navy has aircraft? I thought that was the Air Force."
"Isn't the Marine Corps a part of the Army?"
That is incorrect. There are many combat arms roles women can serve in. They just can't serve in all of them.
Opinions on which way it should go vary.
I stop watching it after about 3 minutes.
My two cents, her ranting should be directed at politicians not soldiers. Sodiers don't vote on which war we are going to fight in.
Combat Arms - Infantry, Armor, Field Artillery, Aviation, Engineers, Air Defense Artillery, and Special Forces.
Other than Infantry, Armor, and Special Forces, femals can branch into other combat arms (not 100% sure about FA, but used to be females could branch FA for nuclear artillery). Of course within combat arms branches that females can select, certain positions are off limit. I have been female AH 64 and OH 58 pilots. Do we still have Avenger platoon? Even with Combat Arms Task Force Bns, you will see females serving along Infantry/Armor soldiers. When I was in active duty, had a female MP platoon leader, female Chemical platoon, and femal medicas attached to my mech infantry battalion task force.
Oh where do I start......
I guess I had some of them before I joined the military....
...wait.... did I join the military?
Yeah, ignorance is bliss
I should have been more precise. I really meant Infantry, with no disrespect intended to the other branches.
I also didn't mean to suggest that women don't already serve in combat roles, because an IED really doesn't care what kind of vehicle you drive.
As for Infantry, I don't see any reason why women can't be formally commissioned in that branch, so long as the physical requirements are the same for everyone -- a 90-lb ruck is still a 90-lb ruck regardless of who carries it. For those of my former Infantry colleagues who might think this will require all sorts of special hygiene accommodations and disciplinary issues with co-mingled troops, my response would be "get over it -- the Russians and Israelis have been doing just fine for decades."
Yeah, well, they'll never hold women to the same standard. Why would they make a woman meet the same physical standards of her male counterparts in the infantry? There is ZERO precedent for that. We don't even take the same PT test.
Anyhow....my weird military pet peeve is the way interactions are portrayed in the movies. I hate when people say "Yes, Colonel!" When have you ever addressed a Colonel as Colonel? It's sir. How hard is that?
scout, for pilots, are there different flight physical standards for men and women?
You have the same basic medical requirements. But that's comparing apples and oranges. In the same vein, men and women have the same basic medical (vision/hearing/health) requirements for DoDMERB and commissioning. But that's where it stops.
. . . or maybe it's because passing heightened medical standards for pilots might actually have something to do with the requirements of the job of being a pilot? I suspect that we won't resolve this issue here, but I do hope that the new PT standards (which require the soldier to drag a weighted sled for a given distance within a certain amount of time) will be the real standard against which all would-be Infantry soldiers are measured. I don't think that I would have had much use in my unit for a male grunt, who could 1000 pushups, if he could not drag a wounded fellow soldier more than 2 feet on the ground. Some women can, though.
There was a time when women were not allowed to practice law in the United States for a whole host of dumb reasons. I think there was a similar bar among physicians and clergy. The first woman to practice law in the US, Margaret Brent, did not allow "precedent" to stand in her way.
And did she pass the same bar exam as men? Or did they grade her on the female scale?
You're completely confusing my point about precedent. I said there is no precedent for holding women to the same physical standards as men. I stand by that. Sure, a female pilot has to meet the same vision standards I do. But if I run a 16:37 2-mile I'm a failure. If she runs a 16:37 2-mile she gets a 93% and is eligible for the fitness badge.
But it doesn't matter in aviation, as long as she can fly, right? Because a female officer would never have to be in condition to lead her male crew on an evasion from a downed aircraft...oh, wait.
I have no problem with women serving in uniform. What I have a problem with is the institutional norm of putting a woman in charge of a formation and requiring her by regulation to meet the same standards her soldiers must meet to follow her. We let this ancient PT idea institutionalize hypocrisy.
Putting this train back on its original tracks
That anyone who disagrees with our way of thinking or questions why we do what we do is an moronic fool.
Case in point is the girl whose youtube post is linked to in this thread. Typical responses from those who spend the time to watch her pontifications: "She's dumb", "Why don't you just leave the country?", and my ultimate favorite: "How DARE you disrespect our troops!" Not saying these were posted here, just saying this is a typical response. And Yes, even sometimes (OK, a LOT of times) from the troops themselves.
But you know what? She seems pretty smart to me. Uninformed, and just a tad niave, but she seems like she's pretty intelligent enough. Nothing that can't be fixed through a simple conversation between her and someone else with opposing views. What each may find out is they will BOTH learn something from each other's perspectives.
You know what else? NEVER forget that YOUR job will be to ensure that she has every right to say and think what she does. Regardless of whether you agree with it or not.
Just because your in the military doesn't mean you're smarter than everyone else, or more patriotic than everyone else, or any more American than anyone else. Don't let YOUR biases and stereotypes make YOU think anything less of persons who don't agree with your positions. You should be better than that.
Our country expects you to be...
Good call, Bullet. I have a tremendous amount of respect for scoutpilot. He's tough as nails and articulates his points very well (especially when he finds himself being painted into an utterly indefensible corner! ).
As for the woman in the video, she's an idiot. But then I suppose that makes me an idiot as well, because your points about people should have an open mind and respect the opinions of others are very well-taken. Thank goodness I have the constitutional right and guaranteed freedom in this country to be an idiot!
And the other stereotype that I find annoying is that Army chow is bad. The Army has some of the finest cooks/chefs in the business!
Like I said before, I really don't think she is an idiot. Tragically and woefully ignorant and niave, yes. But not an idiot. Actually, I would rather enjoy the opportunity to sit with her and discuss her biases and opinions. I find those types of debates invigorating and enjoyable.
Part of the reason I am so happy and lucky to be married to Pima: we don't always agree on everything (sheesh, no kidding ), and we both have very open minds to listen to each other's opinions on the whole gamut of issues. (Notice I said listen and not hear; huge difference.) We LOVE to debate each other, and to this day, I still can't get her to see the logic of sleeping with you feet under the covers; she insists on uncovering hers. Doesn't she know the "Toe Monster" is out there, just waiting to gobble up those exposed tootsies?
I am in agreement with Scoutpilot. I don't think the Army is capable of establishing a same phyiscal requirement for all Infantry soldiers. I have no doubt that there are females that could meet a physical standard established for infantry soldiers. Than, how about for Ranger School? I have seen many males short and light that graduated from Ranger School, but no one gave them slack because they were small. It's time to pick a RTO or M240 gunner, do we exclude small soldiers? If you don't give females chance to become Ranger qualified as an Infantry officer, you just placed an obstacle to her career advancement. When I was in active duty some Brigade/Bn commanders refused to give line platoon leader positions to non-Ranger qualified infantry officers. I know at least two general officers that were infantry officers that are not Ranger qualifed, but they are rare breed.
This is a pet peeve of mine, Bullet. This is not a matter of constitutional rights. The constitution (the First Amendment in this instance) applies to limit governmental action. The government here is not going to limit her right to say idiotic things. Unless she starts making actual threats, the FBI is not going to show up on her doorstep. But, private citizens can call her an idiot all they want without limiting her constitutional rights. Indeed, they have the same right (to the extent one exists) to call her an idiot that she has to be one. BTW, speaking for only for myself as a private citizen (rather than in my role as a government lawyer), I think (opinion) that she may not *be* an idiot (she certainly seems to have a brain), but her views are uh, "less than persuasive"
Separate names with a comma.